Hacking thing has been ludicrously overblown

[DaveR]

The hacking thing has definitely been overblown, the interesting one is police corruption, and it's too early to say what's going to come out of that. Hacking was widespread because it worked, and continued to work, because nobody realised for years that it was going on (interesting sub-plot - how many relationships broke down because celebs assumed that 'friends' had talked to the tabloids?). The degree of intrusion resulting from hacking was generally no greater, however, than from lots of other journalistic practices that are not unlawful and that will carry on.

Police corruption is another matter, but we don't yet know whether that goes beyond plod being paid for early heads-up of big stories and for sordid details (which has always been around, tbh). There has been a suggestion of a DPG officer selling details of private royal engagements and contact details, which would be a biggie, but the real game changer would be evidence of police accepting bribes to ignore law-breaking by journos.

As an aside, a UK based employee of a US company making a corrupt payment to a UK public official almost certainly commits an offence under the US Foreign Corupt Practices Act, which is a current 'hot' area for US law enforcement. Some of the News International folk will be hoping they get charged in the UK.

[Loz]

... and in today's 'Resignation of the Day', Yates of the Yard has gone...

[StraferJack]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that however widespread hacking is, not many other newspapers would be involved in hacking the phones of dead children and deleting messages

If this was just about hacking there is not a chance so much damage would have been done so far. NI would have produced a dossier proving every other paper was at it and the whole thing would have blown over

This whole thing reeks of something MUCH bigger, yes involving police corruption, but despite all the resignations, we aren't seeing even close to the full picture yet IMO

So whilst yes, the story started as "hacking", that aspect is only the tiny keyhole into the whole mess

[DJKillaQueen]

I tend to agree with you SJ. I think this may well be the tip of something bigger....time will tell if we ever get to it.

Interestingly on the radio this morning someone asked 'why now'? Surely it can't just all be about sabotaging Murdoch's SkyBSB takeover. Cameron was under fire for Coulson months ago for example. Also the previous investigation into (I think it was) a few counts of hacking concluded there was no bigger case to answer. Some of those people making those conclusions are now implicated in covering up so the whole thing is messy.

Maybe it's just the result of how intertwined the press, politicians, Police etc are - we are after all talking about an 'establishment' dominated circle where they all socialise, do deals and cosy up together and wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't so powerful. But they are powerful, hypocritical and completely without morals (hacking a missing and ultimately murdered child's phone is beyond belief)....and there are implications. Do we want these people running our Police force, Press and Governments? And if it is a culture rather than the acts of a few individuals, how do we change it?

[Brendan]

What surprises me is all the surprise and the sudden attacks of righteous indignation.

And meanwhile in funny-coz-its-true world:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/once%11apathetic-nation-now-mildly-annoyed-201107124061/

[StraferJack]

Why now? It's not for want of trying in 2005 and 2009

but this article provides some good background

Bren - I suspect the surprise and sudden expressions of indignation are more to do with the lifting of fear of reprisals rather than any sudden insight. That in itself is pretty damning.. that so many people could be so cowed by just a leeetle newspaper. Think of the other media behemoth that people like to complain about- the BBC. Do you think there is a person in the country who is in any way intimidated by what info the BBC might hold over them? I don't

[Loz]

Why now? The Milly Dowler revelations.

People found celebrities and politicians being hacked mildly amusing. But the deletion of messages on Milly Dowler's phone opened the floodgates. And once something like this picks up momentum, it's very hard to stop.

[StraferJack]

found dead today... but not suspicious. Apparently

[BrandNewGuy]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the Birmingham Six? What did The Sun have to say

> about them? On the day of their release the front

> page headline read LOONY MP BACKS BOMB GANG. An

> editorial said, 'If the Sun had it's way, we would

> have been tempted to string 'em up

> years ago

Hmmm, here's what that MP, Chris Mullin, said,

?It was a lonely cause to begin with,? he revealed, adding: ?As we started to make progress it became even less popular. One day The Sun ran a headline ?Looney MP backs bomb gang?."

Not quite what you wrote... And that editorial was written after they lost an appeal in 1988. They weren't released for another three years.

I'm no apologist for The Sun, but you should get your facts straight.

[nashoi]

As is so often the case when looking for the TRUTH you have to turn to Fox News to find it. Here's their take on why you lot are all being so unfair and positively beastly to poor old Rupe.

Who could possibly argue he's been anything other than a benign influence on standards of journalism?

[StraferJack]

Have I missed something. Has what mullin said contradicted what I said. Is it because I said "on day of release". I'll look into that some more

Not really sure anything you said materially changes what I'm saying about the suns position tho

[BrandNewGuy]

The Birmingham Six *lost* the 1988 appeal on which The Sun was commenting. The Birmingham Six were technically still guilty. Most commentators saw their sudden release as a vindication of those who'd fought for their innocence (even though the judge did not say that they were innocent) and it would have been truly shocking for a newspaper to say, well we'd have strung 'em up... and I bet The Sun didn't.

[StraferJack]

But the fact that a national newspaper would have said that before they were cleared (as opposed to afterwards) doesn't strike you as prejudicial?

I admit I did lift the quotes from another site and meant to annotate as much, but I remember the tone if the paper at the time as being pretty similar. But fair enough I'll look into it

Some more

[StraferJack]

BNG - it gets worse for me. I found the site I'd originally used

here

and clearly I had skimmed it and interpreted it incorrectly. So a good shout from you there

That said, even correcting the chronology to before they were released, the paper's tone, attitude and language are well out of order

[mockney piers]

Love it Nashoi, meanie media, piling it on when they've apologised! :-D

Nothing to see here folks, move along...gotta love Fox

[maxxi]

Now that 'Jonnie Marbles' has managed to get the committee falling over themselves to say how courageous Murdoch and clan are for sitting there - when is it NOT a good idea to pie someone?

(And don't ever get in the way of Murdoch's missus - she was in the guy's face while police were still reacting with the traditional "Uuuh...?")

ETA: pie attack -

[Senor Chevalier]

Hackgate the movie

[silverfox]

Jonnie has not only lost his marbles he's lost his girl as well

['bout now]

I loved Trevor Kavanagh on R4 this morning having a pop at the BBC for it's blanket coverage when there are much more important world issues happening at the moment.

The Sun's front page on Tuesday was a picture of David Beckham and his new baby.

Sock it to 'em Trev.

[MissNoodlesHats]

So the director of communications for the prime minister of the united kingdom was receiving ?200000+ into his bank account from News International and nobody seemed to wonder or knew where that money was coming from.

So security checks were non existent.

So someone that close to our PM does not have to declare their income

So he was basically in the pay of a commercial company whilst feeding the country information about the direction for our polit

ics

The coalition had 24 meetings with Rebecca Brooks and News International and they did not know that effectively News International had a man on the inside?

Basically the last election was from a media standpoint almost completely rigged.

The murdoch's need to be arrested, surely the NOTW would have exposed that had it been this great newspaper keeping the politicians in check?

What a joke, if anything this is ludicrously under blown! Who gave this thread this title ?

[Marmora Man]

MNH - sigh! Conspiracy theories everywhere.

It's a fact of business life that if you are made redundant or "resign" with an associated compromise agreement you will receive payment from the relevant company. This is not a bribe or under the counter payment to keep you in hock to your previous employer - it is simply part of employment law and practice. I have been through a similar situation twice. Once the relevant payment was made as a lump sum into my bank account within 14 days of the deal being done, in the other I agreed to continue receiving "pay and benefits" on a monthly basis until the total sum agreed was reached.

In both cases I was fortunate enough to find new employment before I had "spent" all the money received. In neither case did I think it necessary to inform my new employer about my "payoff". Nor did my future employer see fit to ask about any "payoff".

I would suggest Andy Coulson's situation was similar. He fell on his sword and took the public rap for the scandal and his employer gave him a generous payoff.

I am not suggesting Andy Coulson was necessarily innocent of knowledge of the hacking scandal on his watch. I do however content that the fact of him continuing to receive elements of his payoff while subsequently employed by the Conservative Party is not a scandal, conspiracy or evidence of further wrong doing.

There was a failure within the Conservative Party in that Andy Coulson was not subjected to a "Positive Vetting" procedure - something that senior public servants would undergo prior to any appointment to a sensitive post with access to highly classified material.

[Huguenot]

Quite, MM

[LadyDeliah]

Didn't he keep a company car and mobile or something belonging to NI too though?

[MissNoodlesHats]

Hi MM thanks but having negotiated about 100+ VCT's I'm well aware of the specifics of the things ! Your right about due diligence though.

What you must surely find odd , H included, is that when he signed his contract with the coalition , which surely must have included healthcare, he failed to say "oh actually new international are still paying for my healthcare " - he obvioulsy did not because he knew they would then rumble his 10 phonecalls a day to red haired rebecca, not very communicative on this point was he !

So boys get real, who needs 2 health insurance policy, what is it kidney on bupa , testicles on AXA !

Now you no why rupert practically licked brookes to death when he landed, she could seriously *uc* news international and Murdoch and his sons.

Conspiracy...I think not. X

[Marmora Man]

MNH - your logic is poor. You make an assumption, with no evidence, that AC was provided with private healthcare cover in his Conservative Party job. Then you compare that assumption with a fact and use the juxtaposition to draw an unwarranted conclusion.